Laserfiche WebLink
<br />00519, <br /> <br />REVISED DRAFT (# I 0) - August 1].2004 <br />Clean Version <br /> <br />through which tribes assist federal agencies in carrying out their responsibilities. In one <br />sense, the term "government-to-government" relations is a way ofreminding people that <br />Indian tribes are different from non-governmental organizations that advocate for the <br />interests of particular groups that comprise part of the general public. <br /> <br />The relationship between tribes and states can also be described as "government- <br />to-government." State-tribal relations, though, are different from federal-tribal relations. <br />For example, federal-tribal relations are subject to the federal trust responsibility, while <br />the states have no corresponding responsibility to tribes. <br /> <br />D. Tribal Territorial Jurisdiction <br /> <br />As the Final EIS acknowledges, the Navajo Nation and the Hualapai Tribe have <br />management responsibilities associated with Grand Canyon, and that the Navajo Nation <br />also has such responsibilities associated with Marble and Glen canyons. FEIS, page 4. <br />For each of these tribes, its reservation is bordered by the Colorado River, and so these <br />two tribes have governmental authority over lands within the Colorado River corridor that <br />may be affected by the operation of Glen Canyon Dam. DOl and the Hualapai Tribe do <br />not agree on the precise location of the boundary of the Hualapai Reservation; similarly, <br />001 and the Navajo Nation do not agree on the location of the boundary of the Navajo <br />Reservation. Neither boundary is the subject of an applicable court ruling; however, <br />during the preparation of the FEIS a Department of the Interior solicitor opinion stated <br />that no trust assets are present within the geographic area affected by Glen Canyon Dam <br />operations. <br /> <br />It is unnecessary to resolve these disagreements prior to the adoption of this <br />Consultation Plan. Accordingly, the Consultation Plan simply notes that there are <br />disagreements regarding these boundaries, and, in Part 5. this Plan takes note of some of <br />the implications ofthis boundary issue with respect to the impacts of Glen Canyon Dam <br />operations and activities under the auspices of the AMP and/or P A/HPP on cultural <br />resources and natural resources of importance to the Tribes. If a situation arises that <br />renders it necessary or advisable to definitively resolve an issue relating to a reservation <br />boundary, the protocols in Parts 4 and 5 of this Consultation Plan may be used for <br />consultation regarding the resolution of such an issue. <br /> <br />(I) Hualapai Reservation Boundary <br /> <br />The Hualapai Reservation was established by Executive Order on January 4, <br />1883. This Executive Order places the relevant boundary on the Colorado River for a <br />distance that has since then been determined to be 108 River miles. The Hualapai Tribe <br />maintains that its Reservation boundary is the middle of the Colorado River. The <br />Solicitor's Office of the Department has issued two opinions, dated February 6,1976, and <br />November 25, 1997, taking the position that the Reservation boundary is the high water <br />mark on the south bank of the River. These Solicitor's opinions do not definitively <br />resolve the matter. although these opinions are regarded by officials and staff of <br /> <br />10 <br />